Scott Coley is a Christian philosopher who published Ministers of Propaganda: Truth, Power, and the Ideology of the Religious Right. Lots of people are excited about it: it’s abuzz on Twitter, several popular Christian academics have endorsed it, and Eerdmans is publishing it—nothing to sneeze at!
One thing I have been mulling over is how none of the authors or sociologists in this sphere have said much at all about Gaza. Coley hasn't spoken on it at all. At the very least, I find it curious and, perhaps, a source of insight, that these experts in the intersection of faith, politics, and nationalism aren't speaking into this crisis that has direct American involvement.
I won't speculate about his reasons for that. I was just concerned here with what he had to say in the book. But I'd be interested to hear what he thinks!
I'm just curious, what positive beliefs does this guy have, if any? All I can seem to locate online is the dunking. If there is a strain related to TDS that we might call CNDS -- Christian Nationalism Derangement Syndrome -- he may or may not be a sufferer, but it's clearly the audience he's marketing himself to.
I won't say he has something like CNDS or TDS. I just object to some of the things he's done in this book, that's all.
As for his own positive beliefs, the last chapter of the book outlines his own alternative to the views he discusses in the book. Here's a preview:
“Ideology, propaganda, and motivated reasoning are powerful forces that afflict all human beings. But evangelicals can and should resist these forces by actively questioning the legitimacy of social hierarchies that privilege our own interests above those of our neighbors, which is precisely what Christians are called to do. When we divest ourselves of our own interests in defending the established order, we are free to abandon theological narratives that the religious right uses to legitimize that order—along with any antagonism toward expertise that poses a threat to those theological narratives."
Russell says: ' (1) that when the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain; (2) that when they are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert; and (3) that when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgment.
These propositions may seem mild, yet, if accepted, they would absolutely revolutionize human life'.
The experts ARE agreed about Covid vaxx: they agree that even though there are risks they're minimal compared to the benefits. The experts ARE agreed about evolution: Moreland is a philosopher--not a biologist. When conservative Evangelicals make empirical claims that are inconsistent with the claims made by secular experts on these empirical matters they are anti-intellectual. Religion is about metaphysical matters--the existence and nature of God--not empirical matters that are the business of the sciences.
I'm not really sure Nick is talking about the vaccine particularly here--his point is just that public health officials made some serious gaffes and errors in judgment during the Covid response (especially early), such that some people were *reasonably* skeptical of those officials moving forward.
This seems understandable to me even if I think, say, vaccine hesitancy doesn't really hold up under a ton of scrutiny. I got the vaccine, I encouraged those around me to get it. But I don't blame anyone for some hesitancy when you had pretty blatant and dishonest paternalism regarding mask usage in April-May 2020.
Fwiw, I am in agreement with you re: evolution and Moreland. I think Creationism is pretty implausible as a (pseudo)scientific enterprise, though I suppose if you are only thinking philosophically or theologically (like, e.g., Moreland) I understand how you can come to those conclusions.
Nick are you a Christian?
Very much so! I’m Anglican.
Oh cool (especially cool that you’re an Anglican).
One thing I have been mulling over is how none of the authors or sociologists in this sphere have said much at all about Gaza. Coley hasn't spoken on it at all. At the very least, I find it curious and, perhaps, a source of insight, that these experts in the intersection of faith, politics, and nationalism aren't speaking into this crisis that has direct American involvement.
I won't speculate about his reasons for that. I was just concerned here with what he had to say in the book. But I'd be interested to hear what he thinks!
I'm just curious, what positive beliefs does this guy have, if any? All I can seem to locate online is the dunking. If there is a strain related to TDS that we might call CNDS -- Christian Nationalism Derangement Syndrome -- he may or may not be a sufferer, but it's clearly the audience he's marketing himself to.
I won't say he has something like CNDS or TDS. I just object to some of the things he's done in this book, that's all.
As for his own positive beliefs, the last chapter of the book outlines his own alternative to the views he discusses in the book. Here's a preview:
“Ideology, propaganda, and motivated reasoning are powerful forces that afflict all human beings. But evangelicals can and should resist these forces by actively questioning the legitimacy of social hierarchies that privilege our own interests above those of our neighbors, which is precisely what Christians are called to do. When we divest ourselves of our own interests in defending the established order, we are free to abandon theological narratives that the religious right uses to legitimize that order—along with any antagonism toward expertise that poses a threat to those theological narratives."
Russell says: ' (1) that when the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain; (2) that when they are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert; and (3) that when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgment.
These propositions may seem mild, yet, if accepted, they would absolutely revolutionize human life'.
The experts ARE agreed about Covid vaxx: they agree that even though there are risks they're minimal compared to the benefits. The experts ARE agreed about evolution: Moreland is a philosopher--not a biologist. When conservative Evangelicals make empirical claims that are inconsistent with the claims made by secular experts on these empirical matters they are anti-intellectual. Religion is about metaphysical matters--the existence and nature of God--not empirical matters that are the business of the sciences.
I'm not really sure Nick is talking about the vaccine particularly here--his point is just that public health officials made some serious gaffes and errors in judgment during the Covid response (especially early), such that some people were *reasonably* skeptical of those officials moving forward.
This seems understandable to me even if I think, say, vaccine hesitancy doesn't really hold up under a ton of scrutiny. I got the vaccine, I encouraged those around me to get it. But I don't blame anyone for some hesitancy when you had pretty blatant and dishonest paternalism regarding mask usage in April-May 2020.
Fwiw, I am in agreement with you re: evolution and Moreland. I think Creationism is pretty implausible as a (pseudo)scientific enterprise, though I suppose if you are only thinking philosophically or theologically (like, e.g., Moreland) I understand how you can come to those conclusions.